Yes, indeed. I've said it before and I'll say it again: to the extent "family values" is an issue that matters to Americans, at least Obama seems to represent (so far -- he's still young) those values in his personal life far better than either Billary! or Mc-dump-old-bag-who-stood-by-me-and-advocated-for-me-during-POW-experience-for-hot-rich-new-young-trophy-wife-with-Mafia-connections, even though Obama's voting record has been about as pro-choice as you can get. And think about it -- a President doesn't have the opportunity to affect directly legislation on "family values" issues nearly as much as he or she affects foreign policy. The "pro-life" (and pro-limited government and pro-federalism) crowd should vote for the candidate who appears most anti-war, because war-mongering is profoundly anti-life and anti-freedom, and Obama appears to be the least pro-war of the three.

Disclaimer: I think Obama is a fascist, although no more of one than the other two, and my principles do not allow me to vote for any of them, or indeed anybody (except perhaps for local elections, where democracy actually has a chance of having some meaning). But at least Obama's brand of fascism appears more likely to exercise a "preferential option for the poor" rather than a "preferential option for the rich" ... and fascism always and necessarily exercises a preferential option for somebody or some class.

... and they had to listen to Reverend Wright's poison. Do they attend Chicago public school, NOT! Wake-up Ann, he is a phony. I voted for him in 2004; just say Chief Justice Roberts to remind yourself what he really is, a partisan hack.

Sloanasaurus: "You mean a preferential option for the mob. Fascism with a smile is still fascism."

But my point was that this is preferable, or would act as a counterweight, to a "preferential option for the rich," which is what "representative" government by its very nature tends towards.

john said: "Your protest 'nonvote' will not register anywhere except in your own self rightiousness."

I refrain from voting because of my principles, not because of my self-righteousnmess. Basically, I think that the idea that a 51% artificial and manufactured "majority" has the right to lord it over the minority is completely illegitimate, and I don't want to contribute directly to the false aura of legitimacy surrounding that process in the popular mind by participating in that process.

And acting upon said principles is more important to me than voting for the "lesser evil," especially when weighed against the zero influence my one vote has when thrown in a cauldron of millions of other votes, and when weighed against the consideration that I'm not all that confident that Obama or Hillary or McCain would be all that different.

If McCain or Hillary winds up beating Obama by one vote, then I might come to regret my decision to refrain from voting, but I think the chance of that happening is far less than my chance of being struck by lightning within the next hour.

I guess looks matters. The kids are beautiful, but all I see is a Marxist-socialist that wants protectionist policies and wants to take my money to give to somebody else. He knocks Clinton for not offering anything other than feel-good solutions but has yet to offer any hard, realistic solutions to energy or US debt.

Your protest "nonvote" will not register anywhere.

1. I propose protest 'nonvotes' should be allowed registration.

2. A coordinated 'Mickey Mouse' write-in vote would register, would it not?

If that brought you back to seeing Obama in a human light, how about this one - from a culture that actually knows how to put its leaders in their place when it comes to their human vices as well as their virtues.

Skyler, let's stop with this canard about Michelle Obama hating her country. She clearly mis-spoke and was referring to the incredibly damaged sense of pride one senses when the country is led by scoundrels and elected on such vacuous principles. Some people require more for their patriotism than nationalism alone and for them principles of governance matters - although I could understand if you can't relate to that concept.

It's interesting to me that you said that. I have a client who is a political consultant and I sometimes shoot photos for use in candidates' direct mail brochures. One of the standard images we do is a nice family group... usually in an outdoor setting. It's always a difficult shot to get because kids are kids and it's hard to get all the family members to have a good expression in one shot. Sometimes you have to Photoshop one head from another shot to make the group. Anyway... somebody recently made a comment to me that he had seen one of these brochures and he was mightily impressed by the family photo. He said that he made up his mind right then and there to vote for this candidate because this family photo was prominently featured and he just felt that this was the kind of person he wanted to see in public office. That freaked me out a little bit.

rightwingprof said: "I somehow doubt that someone who puts family values in sneer quotes has much business judging the family values of candidates."

You've misjudged me entirely, "prof." I believe strongly in "family values," and the fact that I put those words in quotes was not meant as a sneer at all. I think the family is the most fundamental building block of society, and if it disintegrates civilization disintegrates with it. I do think, however, that the preservation of "family values" depends primarily upon the culture and the society itself, and not the government, whose coercive intervention and influence -- in this area as in so many others -- is almost always baleful.

My failing to hew to the party line of the abominable heresy that is neoconservativism may have led you astray as to my true intentions. I recommend you read anything by Bill Kauffman to help you get up to speed, so that you'll know what you're talking about when you talk about conservativism.

"Skyler, let's stop with this canard about Michelle Obama hating her country."

It's not a canard in the least. She herself has made many comments in that regard. She and her husband both attended a church that features a minister that (is not very bright) and regularly says how much he hates this country. His political career was launched at the home of a self-professed terrorist couple who have planted bombs and tried to subvert our government through violence.

Yeah, so what is one supposed to conclude? Only an OJ juror can say that they aren't marxists that hate our country.

But at least they aren't the pathological liars that the Clintons are. They only try a little bit to hide their ideology and their true intention to dismantle the last remaining vestige of capitalism that we still have.

John said..."I refrain from voting because of my principles, not because of my self-righteousnmess. ... I don't want to contribute directly to the false aura of legitimacy surrounding that process in the popular mind by participating in that process."

John, what do you think self-righteousness means if something other than announcing loudly and repeatedly that you aren't voting for either candidate because your principles don't allow it?

And it's a cheap shot, by the way, to suggest (as I think this post does) that the human reaction is to find a photo moving, with its implicit suggestion that the flipside -- not being moved by photographic evidence that a politician has successfully done something human beings have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years (married and procreated) -- is something less than human.

I have a photo of me, my mother and father on Corcovado mountain in Rio, when I was 5. My mother has her arms entwined around me, and my dad is looking out towards the horizon, with the look of a man who made it all possible.

It's really hard to find out John, all these years, that I was just a prop.

LOL. You caught me. You're a smart guy, whom I respect. I'm both principled AND self-righteous. What's wrong with that, so long as I don't lose humility re: my own moral shortcomings? But I don't think I go out of my way to announce that I'm not voting for anybody, any more than you make clear as often as the discussion warrants it your Scalia-philia.

Skyler, you go on believing what you want to believe - in spite of any evidence for it. (Anyone has any clips of Michelle Obama using the terms "hate" or "hatred" in reference? Oh that's right. I thought so). That only makes it easier for you to have to accept that the Obamas can believe what they want to believe in spite of their pastor's statements. But at least you know to not push the "pride in her country" line (despite its not living up to its ideals), which is where we all know the bs "Michelle Obama hates her country" meme originated. And keep up the Marxism talk. It will be a strong year for Republicans to run their spendthrift record on the economy - especially w/the co-author of McCain-Feingold leading the defender-of-capitalism charge. But it seems that's just the structural basis for your "Michelle Obama hates America" line anyway, which is actually kind of funny - almost as funny as it would be to run on it.

1. Obama's wife has made numerous statements to the effect that she has never been proud of her country.

2. This implies that she does not have good feelings for her country.

3. The chuch that she attended for 20 years with her husband features a man who regularly preaches that they should not have pride in their country.

4. The preacher also says that the country should be damned.

5. When you wish that god condemns something, this is saying that you hate it.

6. Obama's wife regularly allowed this man to have close associations with her, her children and her husband.

7. Her husband, Obama himself, has waxed at length about how important this preacher was to his outlook on life.

8. When Obama was planning to run for office the first time, he held his debut party at the home of a couple that think planting bombs to overthrow the government is a good thing, and still wishes that he had done more violence. We can only presume that he hasn't done any killing and maiming of people recently, but that isn't known definitely beyond his wishing that he would.

9. People are judged by many means, but a very good indiator of one's character and ideology is often obtained from examining the company they keep.

10. Obama is married to a woman who hates her country sufficiently that she says she has never been proud of it. He cavorts with terrorists that hate the country so much that they still wish to overthrow it with violence. They attended the church of a man that hates the country so much that he commands his god to damn it.

So what part of this is funny? If we end up with Obama in office, the only people laughing will be the kind of people that fly airplanes into skyscrapers.

She clearly mis-spoke and was referring to the incredibly damaged sense of pride one senses when the country is led by scoundrels and elected on such vacuous principles. Some people require more for their patriotism than nationalism alone and for them principles of governance matters - although I could understand if you can't relate to that concept.

Firstly, she didn't 'mis-speak' unless you mean she accidentally revealed her true feelings. Since I don't have ESP or the ability to look into Michelle Obama's inner soul, like you seem to be able to do, I am taking her at her words.

This is the first time in her adult life that she has been proud of her country. Period. Why she has never been proud before, we can only speculate the same way you are speculating what her super secret meaning is.

And, yes they are cute kids. I just hope they don't have the -sour self serving everyone owes me a living because my skin is this color..oh and I am so much better than you dumb bigoyed hicks in the rural sticks- attitude that their parent's seem to have

The Montana Urban Legend says that Lennon's song Imagine (to which he linked) was not necessarily anti-God nor was it pro-communist. Again, I don't think he's read the lyrics.

Here they are, with a few notes to clue in the Urban Legend:

Imagine there's no heavenIt's easy if you tryNo hell below usAbove us only sky

[NB: Above us ONLY sky. I.E., No GOD.]

[I cut ten lines here.]

Imagine no possessionsI wonder if you canNo need for greed or hungerA brotherhood of manImagine all the peopleSharing all the world...

[Urban Legend: if this isn't communism, then I'm not sure what you could call it. NO POSSESSIONS. This means that the STATE owns everything, and distributes it as they see fit. It's very funny to thnk of John lennon, one of the world's richest men at the time, who was married to one of Japan's richest women, actually meaning this rather than simply trying to get more money...]

At any rate, I enjoyed the link very much, so thanks for sending it through. Clinton was great in the vid, but again I think it's a communist sing-along that champions communal property ownership, as well as atheism:

It's not a canard to say that Michelle Obama hates America, merely an overstatement. See, it's not that she hates us; it's just that we're a continual disappointment to her. She's not Ahmadinejad, she's Mommie Dearest.

The conversation about "Imagine" baffles me. From Rolling Stone:Lennon himself described "Imagine" as "virtually the Communist Manifesto, even though I am not particularly a communist and I do not belong to any movement. . . . But because it is sugar-coated, it is accepted."

When the author himself describes his work as the Communist Manifesto, I think we have to take him at his word.

The Obamas are a handsome family, but I worry about those girls having listened to the gospel of Rev. Wright their entire lives.

Yes Ann, I agree. Barack seems to be a good family man, and that's wonderful. Amazing what that will do for your impression of him. He's certainly much more likable. (That's exactly what my wife thought of Mel Gibson until we learned better.)

I'm drawn to him by things like this. Other things being equal, I'd vote for the more likable person, the good family man. That's a natural reaction from someone (me, and it seems, you too) who admires parents trying their best for their children.

But then I consider his politics, and this starts to offset his likability for me. It's then that I realize that other things are not equal.

If elected, this good family man will definitely appoint bad justices to the Supreme Court. He will definitely raise taxes for all taxpayers, and will use that tax money for more government programs that I think are counter-productive. He will definitely pander to the Democratic Party's interest groups and implement policies that I think are bad for our society as a whole. He will likely pursue policies at home and abroad that will weaken our country's defenses and put us in danger.

So I like him as a person and father, but cannot vote for him as President. But I wish him the best in raising his kids and his career in the Senate, and I hold him no ill will. If the majority of the country wants to elect him President, I will support him and hope he makes America a better place.

Wait a second. This is pretty much the first time these kids have appeared. You criticize them as props and Obama as a phony. But Clinton's whole image is a prop-- she clearly will say anything and presumably do anything to acquire power. It's unclear whether an election victory endorses her generally unprincipled approach to politics as a source of personal power or any clear principles of governance. She also seems to have a deep need, similar to George Bush's need to show himself more manly than his father, to demonstrate that she "has balls." I'm generally suspicious of people who play act at toughness.

The upshot is that you favor Clinton because you think her phoniness is more efficacious in the general election, though Obama has clearly decided not to go a route that the Republicans will certainly feel less shy about when the time comes. (Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, Vince Foster-- let's see if Richard Mellon Scaife can put the genie back in that bottle, her fugitive fundraiser, her actual stand on gun control) The clinton's never held a principle they wouldn't betray to maintain their hold on power and their manic sense of victimization.

I know it has become cliche to compare this coming election to 1912. But 1912 is a very good comparison. The country is in a left wing mood so we have two candidates, Mccain and Obama who are willing (as John K stated above) to bring more fascism to the population.

The only difference is that Obama is both an appeaser and is more likely to reject American traditions. As such, Obama's fascism will likely be more harmful to our liberties than anything McCain or Clinton would bring.

McCain has already denounced Hagee. It doesn't matter though. McCain didn't sit in curch for 20 years listening to Hagee's anti-Catholic tirades (if Hagee made such tirades). Compare/Contrast to Obama who did sit for 20 years cheering on the reverend wright.

The Black Value System of avoiding the Middle Class Value System that such photos (and Michelle's complaints about the costs she bears) embody?

How to consistently have two standards? One for people like themselves and another for guys like McCain, one for people who go to a racial-based church for 20 years and another for people who were endorsed by some random racialist pastor once?

That all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding they're oppressed sharecroppers kept down by Rich White People. They and their pastor both forced to live in hovels while peeps like me lord it over them on E-5 pay?

That they live in a cruel, mean society?

That when they grow up they should avoid careers in the private sector and instead insure that when they grow up they do like mommy and daddy, and live as diversity aparactciks and community grievance mongers, shaking down productive people for their money?

a.) Marxism isn’t so bad.b.) Blowing up government buildings isn’t so bad, provided you don’t kill anyone and later embrace Marxist educational principles (see a.).c.) Maybe AIDS is a government plot. (Ever think of that?)d.) 911? We totally had it coming, even if it was an inside job.e.) Obama has known Rev. Wright 2 or 3 times as long as he’s known his kids. (Inevitably, someone will photoshop a cute-as-a-button picture of Obama sitting on the Rev's lap.)f.) Non sequiturs, the missing campaign element?g.) Obama is a normalist bigot who uses a campaign photo to marginalize non-traditional families.h.) Upon further reflection, Althouse is not really embarrassed, but she ought to be.i.) Just like that picture in LIFE magazine of John, Jackie, Caroline, and John-John. (Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad.)j.) The latest irrelevant intrusion of 60's nostalgia into the present. (Die, boomers, die!)k.) None of the above.

Perhaps McCain can use his children also. All he has to do is put on stage his beautiful adopted daughter and the story of how she became part of his family will tell you exactly what kind of man he is.

Forget about decorated war hero, this is the story that will break the gender gap wide open. Period.

On a lesser note, Michelle Obama is something to fear having the ear of the POTUS.

It's bizarre the way she is holding onto her eldest daughter in both pictures. I can't decide if it's controlling or she's afraid the child will start doing cartwheels. I'm siding with controlling as Michelle seems to be just that.

I really think that suggestions that Bush/Obama/McCain/&c are "fascists" - seen above, among other places - are really difficult to square with the assumption one wants to start from that the writers have basic familiarity with what fascism involves, conceptually and historically. With all due respect, this is the sort of paranoid overstatement best left to the left. That a candidate isn't a libertarian or liberal doesn't make them a fascist.

Reliapundit said..."i wonder: WHERE DOES THIS FAMILY STAND ON SLAVERY REPARATIONS?"

I'll conclude that your admission of not having ESP means that you're as removed from being an authority on the personal meaning of her words as you are from an authority on interpreting them in anothing other than a vaccuum - where context does not exist.

Adult life means that she felt pride in her country at one point. Something changed. I'm glad you would have us assume that change to have been her feelings on what America's about or what patriotism is about (and that's a generous interpretation of what you must mean - especially seeing as how you're not clarifying that here) rather than her feelings on whether it was living up to its ideals - which is what most people would mean were they to say such a thing. So you can go ahead assuming that Obama is somehow more nefarious than most Americans, or that she is disposed to "hating" her country, as others proclaim. But either way, I'll wait for an interpretation from you that proves that you base it on an ability to read - an ability which is betrayed when you use the phrase "adult life" in one sentence and then say "Why she has never been proud before," as if one's childhood is compatible with the word "never", which means that it did not ever exist. I'm assuming the existence of Michelle Obama's childhood is not in doubt, and not, as you say, a "secret existence". But perhaps here again, I assume too much.

Joan, whether or not Lennon meant "Imagine" as a Communist manifesto, doesn't impact on whether the lyrics or song can be interpreted any other way. As it stands, I don't think that Kirby would be happy to acknowledge the likelihood that Lennon was probably no more a fan of the same "state" that he deems a requirement in his interpretation of the song than he was of religion. In any event, no heaven doesn't mean atheism. Atheism means no god. Anyone ever heard of pantheism? There are non-atheist alternatives to being without heaven, or without religion, although I realize I might be impinging on some very limited worldviews here by suggesting such a thing.

I think I'm in over my head trying to convince Skyler that slippery slope arguments leading to the conclusion that Michelle Obama hates America and her husband's presidency will be a terrorist victory are bogus hyperbole. But hey, he's the one who has to convince the American people of it. That's what I'm laughing at, the notion that he could do so. As I am at his abandoned argument that you can judge one's sense of American patriotism by one's commitment to capitalism.

Frang, there is no need to defend McCain just because Obama is so bad. No one said that both aren't bad.

But what you call "politics of association" is all we can go on to determine what Obama's intentions are. Anyone can say they love apple pie and America, but when all the people around a man, the people who mean the most to him, say they hate America, then why shouldn't we believe their opinions are shared by him?

That is, if an insane Dr. Eeevil were to run for president, he would never say his goal was to use laser equipped sharks to destroy civilization. He'd say he wanted to bring "change" or some other such words.

Clearly, many people believe this man with no portfolio to speak of. I intend to judge him by his past writings and statements, and by the company he keeps. His honeyed words today mean little to nothing because they are by design only meant to get him in office and thus we cannot rely on their veracity.

On a lesser note, Michelle Obama is something to fear having the ear of the POTUS.

One of the biggest differences between Lefties and Righties, or those who lean that way, is how they perceive Michelle Obama.

I think I'd rather have Teresa Heinz Kerry sharing the top office, than Michelle Obama, actually, and I never ever thought I'd think that.

But whenever I go to the black blogs (and I discovered a very interesting one centering around black middle-class issues, called Jack and Jill Politics, named after the famous upper-middle class networking organisation for black kids), I find their comments are complimentary to an unbelievable degree about Michelle Obama -- so much so, that I believe there's something much more at work there, than just admiration. Perhaps projection, and certainly wish-fullfillment.

Check it out:

"I luv Michelle. Do not trifle w/ her! And, just what kinda person does she demonstrate, speak, emote, and breathe?

Oh, the feeling of "to be real.""

And.

"Back to Michelle ...

She's the woman I want my sons to marry. She's the woman I want my daughters to emulate."

Some of the blog commenters there didn't all agree about the Rev. Wright situation (some were irate), but almost all of them were fawningly pro-Michelle.

I just can't see it. She screams 'angry' to me. And possibly treasonous.

And speaking of hormones and dildos... you get an angry treasonous First Lady in there and I don't care whether it's a constitutionally protected right or not, American men will be having fewer orgasms. That's just simple math.

At least you admit you're embarrassed. And so you should be. It might help if you imagine the children in burkas.

If you think it can't happen wait til he demoralizes the U. S. military and gives al Qaeda an unimaginable boost by letting them off the mat in Iraq.

And John K

Despite your ridiculous self adulation you are delusional when you accuse the United States of warmongering. Helping a nascent democracy establish law and order in the face of terrorist attacks is peacemaking.

And if the peacemakers are withdrawn before peace and order are established the war will continue, not end. So if you want to see a warmonger I suggest you look in the mirror.

Black Americans have a different narrative of history than whites. I try to read Chomsky or Howard Zinn or Fanon and throw the book down in disgust. Thoughtful blacks read these books and nod in agreement as the scales fall from their eyes. I don't dislike Barack or Michelle, but I think they have a certain unease with certain core American values--and given our history perhaps they should. But I'm not ready to vote for someone who thinks Michael Moore is a great talent. (Even so, their kids look terrific and maybe the next generation will look upon Michael Moore the way we loook upon D W Griffith.) My narrative of American history is that things get better.

rcocean said..."Judge-wise, vote for McCain and you'll get another Kennedy, vs. one more Ginsberg - big whoop."

Even if that was an accurate summary (and I don't think it is - look to McCain to nominate someone in the ballpark of Alito), there is a world of difference between Kennedy and Ginsburg. I don't much like Kennedy, but he comes out on the right side more often than not, while in non-unanimous cases, it is very rare - BMW v. Gore / Phillip Morris and Apprendi and its progeny, for example - to find Ginsburg on the right side. There is a lot of difference between nominating Consuelo Callahan and Diane Sykes, but there's a world of difference between nominating either of those versus nominating Harold Koh, for example, or (God help us) Barack Obama.

"Meanwhile, on immigration, trade, foreign policy, global warming, and social issues McCain will be cutting deals with Ted Kennedy."

You keep insisting that McCain's a social liberal without putting on the table any examples. It seems to me that the only example of a social issue where his position might be characterised as "liberal" is ESCR. And as to the other things, those issues are a wash, because Clinton will be just as bad if not worse. Your mindset is stuck in the primaries, RCocean: you need to get past the question of whether McCain's the best Republican to nominate, and get into a general election framework. McCain is the nominee, he's better than either of the democrats, and if you don't think so, not to put too fine a point on it, either you're not paying attention, or you're not a republican (and you're certainly not a conservative).

"Further, elect McCain and you'll get filibuster proof Democrat majorities in 2010. By 2012 the electorate will be so sick of 12 years of Bush-McCain they'll vote for Rev Wright for President."

Doubt it. Not if McCain manages to be the one thing Bush has never been: competent. It's not the policies that the public's objected to (with the exception of privatizing social security), it's the incompetent execution.

I don't get it. Those two girls look like insufferable suburban brats to me. It oozes from their faces. And I seen plenty enough to spot it a mile away. I can only imagine the screeching "I want it NOW!" Verucha Salt episodes that must go on in that household.

I would like to buy a copy of the right-wing distorting lens, so I can see the world as commenters do here. But I don't think it would be good for my mental health:

Michelle Obama said one time, that for the first time in her adult life she was really proud of her country. Here, "really" is used as an intensifier. It does not say anything about her normal level of pride in her country. This reminds me of complimenting women I have known. When, after they've obviously put extra effort into their appearance, I spontaneously commented that they "look really nice today, only the paranoid freak whackos complain "I guess that means I look like dogshit every other day. Next time keep your opinions to yourself. Asshole." Normal women take it as the obvious compliment it is, and thank me. Similarly, people are psycho to conclude, from her one statement spontaneously expressing pride, that Michelle Obama has not continuously been proud of her country.

Hey Ann:Consider for a moment that Obama and his wife have been exposing those 2 little girls, for their entire lives, to the execrable Rev. Wright, who weekly emphasizes the perfidy of the white race, its attempt to wipe out blacks with disease, the evilness of America, its horrible sins against the rest of the world, how its run by murderers and terrorists, how the entire white race is set up to "grind down" the black race.

The Obama's seem to be doing everything they can to, contrary to Obama's public utterances, extend the feelings of victimization and, frankly, black bigotry against whites, damaging chances for reconciliation or racial progress, into the next generation.

Far from being touched or moved by the Obama's behaviour toward their daughters, I think there are ample reasons to charge the Obama's with child abuse. They have exposed these beautiful little girl sot the foulest evil ranting by a bigoted old racist WEEKLY their entire lives. Who knows what these girls think, or how they consider their white gramma, (who according to Obama is a racist) let alone the rest of the "evil and greedy" white race.

Think about that when you are gushing over this pretty family portrait.

FormerLawStudent: I would like to buy a copy of the right-wing distorting lens, so I can see the world as commenters do here.

It would be cheaper to just remove the distortion lens you are wearing now.

But I don't think it would be good for my mental health:

Do you want the Blue pill or the Red pill?

Michelle Obama said ONE time, that for the first time in her adult life she was REALLY proud of her country. Here, "really" is used as an intensifier. It does not say anything about her normal level of pride in her country.

Well said. You really thrashed that strawman. Bravo!

*smacks fls on head, knocking out distortion lens*

How does it look now? Better or worse:

Michelle Obama said one time, that FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER ADULT LIFE she was really proud of her country.

So... that will be $10 for the head smack. Would you like to use your insurance, or just pay in cash?

The Montana legend argues that most of us here have a simple viewpoint and have never been exposed to things like pantheism.

I would argue that since this is an older person's blog, the problem is actually with the Montana Legend. That is, he's young, and as such, he's busy being confused and drawn off into any and every option, which most of us have already looked at (i.e, pantheism) and rejected.

According to Schopenhauer, pantheism has no ethics.

And this is the reason I rejected it in my early 20s.

It may take some people longer to realize that of all the available options, the best one is not by any means pantheism.

If everything is Godlike, then it is impossible to explain how some things (like Manson or Lenin to say nothing of Lennon) just aren't Godlike (even if they think they are).

At any rate, we've moved way way on, I see, past the divinity of mosquitoes...

who weekly emphasizes the perfidy of the white race, its attempt to wipe out blacks with disease, the evilness of America, its horrible sins against the rest of the world, how its run by murderers and terrorists, how the entire white race is set up to "grind down" the black race.

Another person who thinks twenty years of Wright's sermons amounts to the Fox News highlight reel set on autorepeat. Do these people even go to church, much less Wright's church? The only recurring theme in my pastor's sermons is that the church could use a little more in the collection baskets this week.

Since you're so familiar with pantheism, Kirby, then what's your excuse for not understanding its compatibility with lyrics that ponder an absence of heaven or religion? Dementia? I mean as long as you're going to be an ageist prick endlessly spouting non-sequiturs - this time about the ethical consequences of a specific theology. Which had exactly nothing to do with whether it could fit the song Imagine.

But as long as you're going to continue to obsess on the moral superiority of Near Eastern religion, theists and deists have no better claim to an ethically sound system. They just ascribe catastrophes, illness, etc. to a supernatural entity and thoughtlessly assume those events must have either been deserved (does any pantheist say that inhuman actions, natural or human, are "deserved"?) or part of an inexplicable purpose. Either way, those are convenient ways to justify not having an answer and to promote the sort of arguments from ignorance that you get with ID and other red flags of organized religion's (self-imposed) decreasing relevance. It might be bothersome for some to know there's nothing wrong with an ethics that doesn't demand a reliance on iron-clad, empirically nonsensical theological underpinnings. But not for me.

Maybe it's not that the blog keeps posting. Maybe it's that some make it a point to contribute to the threads in ways that are irrationally indignant and by perpetually responding to arguments that were never made - and with even weaker ones of their own, at that.

df4150Ann, your comment is, quite surprisingly, pathetic. A picture of a politician waving his kids around in public is something that endears Obama to you? Get a grip, woman. Contrast it with how a real man [if not a real conservative] acts, from the Boston Globe:-------------------

Asked during an interview this fall about his reluctance to bring attention to his expansive brood, the normally loquacious John McCain, who is unabashed on any number of topics, seemed uncomfortable.

"It's intentional," he said. "I just feel it's inappropriate for us to mention our children. I don't want people to feel that, it's just, I'd like them to have their own lives.

---------------------

Obama's girls are enough of a reason not vote for him. I'm sick of only girls in the white house. We havent had a boy in the white house for decades. Time for a change.